Harmonica has been a nanny for the Petersons, whose six children range from age 6 to age 30, for over 20 years. Harmonica’s salary is $50,000 per year and her compensation includes room and board since she is required to be available to assist with the children at all times. Harmonica’s twin brother, Hondu, earns $50,000 per year working as a contractor. Hondu’s employer typically offers lodging near the building site for $100 per week, but Hondu rarely takes advantage of this offer. Which of the following statements is correct for Harmonica and Hondu?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Employer-provided lodging changes the worker’s effective pre-retirement consumption and therefore the percent of pre-retirement income they must replace in retirement (the wage replacement ratio). The wage replacement ratio is defined as the retirement income required to maintain pre-retirement living standards divided by pre-retirement earnings. In-kind benefits (room and board) reduce a worker’s out-of-pocket living costs while employed but are unlikely to be provided in retirement, so they raise the percentage of pre-retirement earnings that must be replaced by retirement income.

Step-by-step reasoning:
1) Identify components: Both Harmonica and Hondu have $50,000 cash salary. Harmonica also receives employer-provided room and board (an in-kind benefit) because she must live on-site and be available. Hondu rarely accepts the lodging offer, so his pre-retirement living costs are paid out of his cash wages.
2) Effect on required retirement income: Harmonica’s pre-retirement standard of living includes the value of lodging. In retirement she will have to pay housing out of retirement income; thus to maintain the same standard of living she needs replacement income that covers both ordinary living expenses and housing that was previously provided in-kind.
3) Numerical illustration: Suppose the lodging is worth $12,000/year. Harmonica’s pre-retirement consumption = $50,000 cash + $12,000 lodging = $62,000. If she targets 70% replacement of that consumption, she needs 0.70 × $62,000 = $43,400 in retirement. Expressed as a percent of her $50,000 cash salary that’s $43,400 / $50,000 = 86.8% replacement. Hondu’s 70% target on $50,000 is $35,000, i.e., 70% of his cash salary. Thus Harmonica’s replacement ratio (relative to cash salary) is higher.
4) Why the correct answer fits: Because Harmonica consumes an employer-provided benefit now that won’t automatically be available in retirement, the percent of pre-retirement (cash) earnings she must replace is likely higher than Hondu’s.
5) Why other options are incorrect: Option 1 asserts she’s taxed on lodging and therefore below 70%—tax treatment doesn’t guarantee a lower replacement need; option 2 wrongly claims reduced-cost employer housing is automatically tax-free; option 3 incorrectly states both have tax-free lodging. Those are not generally true without meeting strict tax-code conditions.

Conclusion: Harmonica’s wage replacement ratio is likely to be higher than Hondu’s, matching the provided answer.

Similar Questions

Which of the following statements is most FALSE?

ON WHAT AREAS A FINANCIAL PLANNER CAN HELP INDIVIDUALS?

Which of the following is NOT a good reason for a married couple over the age of 45 to visit a financial adviser?

Consider the financial aspects of renting versus buying a home. Which of the following statements is most accurate from a financial perspective?

Karmen is currently age 40. At what age must she begin taking minimum distributions from her Roth IRA?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler